state special education laws for functional behavioral assessment and behavior intervention plans

State Special Education Laws for Functional Behavioral Assessment and Behavior Intervention Plans Perry A Zirkel Lehigh University ABSTRACT: A comprehensive search identified 31 state statutes and regulations specific to functional behavioral assessments (FBA) and behavior intervention plans (BIP) in the special education context A systematic tabulation of the state law provisions that exceed the rather narrow foundation requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) revealed that most of these additions were of notably limited scope and specificity, with California being the leading exception Eor example, contrary to recommendations in the special education literature, neither the IDEA nor any state special education law requires both a FBA and a BIP when the behavior of a child with a disability interferes with the learning of the child or others As another example, only 17 state laws provided definitions of EBAs and/or BIPs, and the vast majority of these definitions merely mentioned some of the key elements in the special education literature, such as "function" for EBAs or "interventions" for BIPs The discussion explores the disparity between the professional literature and the legal requirements, suggesting the need for more scholarship to recognize and address this differentiation • The special education literature on functional behavioral assessments (EBAs) and behavioral intervention plans (BIPs) is replete with rhetoric, research, and increasingly more detailed practical sources, and the legal literature specific to FBAs and BIPs focuses on the applicable case law However, both of these overlapping literatures lack a systematic analysis of the pertinent provisions in state special education laws that provide more rigorous requirements than the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for school district policies and practices Special Education Foundation An FBA is a systematic process of identifying the purpose, and more specifically the function, of problem behaviors by investigating the preexisting environmental factors that have served the purpose of these behaviors (e.g., Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003; Steege & Watson, 2008) Based on this foundation, a BIP is a concrete plan of action for reducing the problem behaviors as dictated by the particular needs of the student who exhibits the behavior (e.g., Sugai et al., 2000; Turnbull, Wilcox, Stow, Raper, & Hedges, 2000) Based on foundational research that suggested a relationship between problem behaviors and environmental conditions, such as 262 / August 2011 amount of attention and difficulty of instruction (Carr & Durand, 1985; Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982), various studies have applied the FB/VBIP procedure to a wide range of student populations, target behaviors, and educational environments (e.g., Kennedy, Meyer, Knowles, & Shukia, 2000; Pelios, Morren, Tesch, & Axelrod, 1999) Further, in response to calls for wider use in schools (e.g Cable & Hendrickson, 2005; Quinn, Cable, Fox, Van Acker, & Conroy, 2001), research efforts are in progress to refine the FB/VBIP procedure for more practical applicability in the school setting (Fox & Davis, 2005; Steege & Watson, 2008) Legal Analyses In addition to broad and not entirely current overviews of the applicable framework in the legislation and regulations of the IDEA (e.g., Osborne & Russo, 2009), the pertinent legal analyses to date have focused on the case law, specifically hearing and review officer decisions concerning FBAs (Drasgow & Yell, 2001) or both hearing/review officer and court decisions concerning BIPs (Etscheidt, 2006; Maag & Katsiyannis, 2006) Although providing useful recommendations for practice based on these case samplings, none of these analyses focused on the differentiation Behavioral Disorders, 36 (4), 262-278 between the IDEA and state law requirements for FBAs and BlPs The only reports of official state activity specific to FBAs and BIPs did not specifically and directly examine state laws An early survey by the National Association of State Directors of Special Education found, in the wake of IDEA 1997, that at least 19 states had, and another 16 states planned to have, written "policies, procedures, or guidelines concerning assessment of behavior" (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1998, p 2) However, the results did not specifically and separately address state laws specific to EBAs and BIPs For example, the findings were based on a survey of state directors of special education that did not distinguish state laws from this catchall mix of documents Similarly, the generic referent of "assessment of behavior" (p 2) did not provide any specific delineation of FBAs, much less BIPs Another such survey of state directors found that 30% of the respondents reported having state policies that extend beyond the IDEA requirements for FBAs (Conroy, Katsiyannis, Clark, Gable, & Fox, 2002) However, more than a fourth of the state directors did not respond to the survey, and, as the authors acknowledged, the limitations also included the respondents' varying knowledge and response set (p 106) Because the initial items focused broadly on "state policies" and their subsequent items inquired about "recommended" standards, personnel, and procedures, the survey did not distinguish between law and nonbinding guidelines, manuals, and other state education agency (SEA) documents Further reflecting this nondifferentiation, the authors' discussion section ambiguously referred to state policies as "implementation guidelines" (p 105) A pair of subsequent state surveys evaluated resource materials that SEAs had made available to school districts for FBAs and BIPs The first study found that 41 SEAs had such materials for completing an FBA and that these materials generally fell short of standards of practice (Weber, Killu, Derby, & Barretto, 2005) The companion study found that 40 SEAs had such materials for developing a BIP and that only 10 met standards of practice (Killu, Weber, Derby, & Barretto, 2006) Although informatively addressing the difference between prevailing practice and professional Behavioral Disorders, 36 (4), 262-278 norms, neither of these studies canvassed the legislation and regulations in these states concerning FBAs and BIPs in relation to these materials or standards Another pair of successive studies examined FBA and BIP practices at the local district level First, a study in Wisconsin found that, for a sample of public schools, the majority of FBAs/BlPs had serious shortcomings in terms of not only best practice but also the state's legal requirement for the developing team (Van Acker, Boreson, Gable, & Potterton, 2005) Although further illuminating the gap from professional norms, this study did not specifically cite or systematically examine the identified state requirement, which mirrors the parallel provision in the IDEA regulations Second, a subsequent study limited to students with emotional disturbance in self-contained classrooms in a midsized district in the state of Washington similarly found fundamental flaws in the quantity and quality of FBAs and BIPs (Blood & Neel, 2007) For example, only about a third of the students had an FBA, and most of these FBAs lacked critical components in terms of best practice, including a clear connection to the BIP The authors also concluded that the BIPs "tended to be compliance documents rather than tools used to aid in developing programs" (p 75), but their reference point to "the law" (p 76) was unclear because of the absence of substantive standards for FBAs and BIPs in the IDEA and Washington legislation or regulations The purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive and systematic analysis of state statutes and regulations specific to FBAs and BIPs in the K-12 school context that exceed, rather than repeat, the IDEA regulatory requirements Setting the stage for the state law analysis, the next section provides an overview of foundational requirements in the IDEA in terms of the legislation, regulations, and—with due differentiation—agency interpretations IDEA Framework The federal framework for the case law concerning FBAs and BIPs consists of an evolving pattern of three successive levels of the IDEA: (a) the statute, which is subject to periodic amendments, or "reauthorizations," because it is a funding law; (b) the regulations August 2011 / 263 that the administering agency issues after each set of amendments; and (c) the agency's policy interpretations, which generally have persuasive but not binding legal weight (Zirkel, 2003) IDEA Legislation The IDEA did not contain any local education agency (LEA) requirements for FBAs or BIPs until the 1997 and 2004 amendments First, as Zirkel (2007) showed, the 1997 amendments required the individualized education program (lEP) team's consideration "when appropriate" of "strategies, including positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports" to address behavior that impedes the child's learning or that of others The 2004 amendments slightly strengthened this required special consideration by removing "when appropriate" and otherwise made the language more straightforward by requiring the lEP team to consider "the use of positive behavioral intervention and supports, and other strategies" to address such behavior (§1414[d)[3][B][i]) However, neither the 1997 nor 2004 amendments expressly incorporated FBAs and BIPs in this lEP provision, and "consideration" is clearly a lower requirement level than implementation Second and more significantly, the 1997 amendments expressly required an FBA and a BIP in tandem with disciplinary removals Specifically, upon a disciplinary change in placement, including a removal to an interim educational setting for three specified serious behavior violations and a fourth circumstance limited to a hearing officer's determination of substantial risk to self or others, the 1997 amendments required the lEP team to develop or modify an FBA and a BIP in tandem with a manifestation determination review The 2004 amendments subtly differentiated this requirement based on the results of the manifestation determination More specifically, for determinations that the conduct in question was a manifestation of the child's disability, this requirement remained the same as it had been under the 1997 amendments However, for determinations that the conduct was not a manifestation of the child's disability and for removals to a 45-day interim alternate educational setting, the language changed to requiring "as appropriate, a [FBA], behavioral intervention services and modifications, that 264 / August 2011 are designed to address the behavior violation so that it does not recur" (§1415[k][1][D][ii]) IDEA Regulations As Zirkel's (2007) comparative analysis also showed, the 1999 regulations expanded on the 1997 legislative amendments by requiring an "assessment plan" for an FBA and a BIP for children who did not already have them upon the 11th cumulative day of removal, but the 2006 regulations dropped this requirement, rather ambiguously substituting the softer, aforementioned "as appropriate" language (§3OO.53O[b][2] and §300.530[d][1][ii]) In contrast, the 2006 regulations retained the higher, multifactor cumulative-day standard for a disciplinary change in placement, although with an additional factor that tends to lengthen the case-by-case period (§300.536) Otherwise, the 2006 regulations largely mirrored the 2004 amendments in relevant parts For example, the IDEA regulation for the lEP special consideration for learning-impeding behavior tracks the legislative provision word for word (§300.324[a][2][l]) Similarly, the relevant regulations for FBAs and BIPs upon disciplinary changes in placement are almost identical to the legislative provisions OSEP Interpretations In a policy memorandum directly after the 1997 amendments, the Office for Special Education Programs (OSEP, 1997) clarified that the then new legislation did not require an FBA for cumulative removals of less than 10 days in a school year In the same interpretive guidance, OSEP recommended— via use of the word should rather than shall— proactive steps for learning-impeding behavior For example, OSEP stated that in addition to the required consideration, "school districts should take prompt steps to address misconduct when it first appears," listing the following as an illustrative step: "a [FBA] could be conducted" (p 982) In the commentary accompanying the 1999 regulations, OSEP distinguished between "proactive" steps and minimum requirements (p 12,621) and clarified that BIPs are not limited to strategies and supports that are positive (p 12,479) In the commentary accompanying the 2006 regulations, OSEP added its interpretive Behavioral Disorders, 36 (4), 262-278 clarifications concerning (a) lEPs and (b) manifestation determinations For the first situation, OSEP opined that FBAs and BIPs "are not required components of an lEP" unless state law provides otherwise (p 46,629) For manifestation determinations, OSEP declined to specify standards for a valid or current FBA, reasoning that "such decisions are best left to the LEA, the parent, and [other] relevant members of the lEPTeam" (p 46,721) Moreover, declining to add a requirement for an FBA and BIP upon a negative manifestation determination, OSEP pointed to the aforementioned change in legislative language and the "proactive" option of the lEP special consideration (p 46,721) After the issuance of the 2006 regulations, OSEP added further relevant interpretations in the form of policy letters and question-andanswer memoranda These clarifications started with OSEP clarifying that state special education regulations that allow aversive interventions are not in conflict with the IDEA (Letter to Trader, 2006) Next, OSEP's immediate parent agency, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS), distinguished manifestation determinations requiring an FBA and a BIP from the lEP special consideration permitting an FBA and a BIP (Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures, 2007) Two years later, OSERS issued a superseding interpretation, slightly strengthening its previous position by adding the following two situations as requiring a BIP: (a) a negative manifestation determination (in light of the statutory language) and (b) "[f]or a child with a disability whose behavior impedes his or her learning or that of others, and [emphasis added] for whom the lEP Team has decided that a BIP is appropriate" (Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures, 2009, p 1154) In addition, this more recent policy statement added definitional guidance about an FBA: An EBA focuses on identifying the function or purpose behind a child's behavior Typically the process involves looking closely at a wide range of child-specific factors (e.g., social, affective, environmental) Knowing why a child misbehaves is directly helpful to the lEP Team in developing a BIP that will reduce or eliminate the misbehavior, (pp 11531154) Intervening between the two latest OSERS interpretations, OSEP provided guidance as to the questions of what the purposes and Behavioral Disorders, 36 (4), 262-278 components of an FBA are and who must conduct it (Letter to Janssen, 2008) More specifically, OSEP explained that the IDEA does not specify the components of an FBA beyond its linkage to the development of a BIP Similarly, in the absence of IDEA specifications, OSEP deferred to state law as to who is qualified to conduct the FBA, rejecting the contention that under the IDEA the person must be a board-certified behavior analyst Method The successive steps that the author alone conducted for finding the relevant state laws were as follows: a) Boolean search, via the Westlaw database, of each state's legislation and regulations, using "functional behavioral assessment," "behavior intervention plan," "behavioral intervention plan," or "behavior support plan"; b) search of the Web site of the SEA for each state that lacked entries in Step 1; and c) double-checking via the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center's (NECTAC, 2011) updated list of state regulations Nevertheless, it is possible that one or more pertinent provisions escaped the cumulative catchment of these successive steps For example, the first step may have missed a pertinent FBA provision due to varying terms, even limited to functional "behavior"—rather than "behavioral"—assessment The other two steps helped mitigate this missing-data problem The selected NECTAC list was relatively comprehensive and current, being specific to Part B (i.e., ages 3-21 years) rather than Part C (i.e., ages 0-3 years), of the IDEA The use of state Web sites was purposely the other supplementary step rather than being the primary or sole source for the search First, the SEA Web sites are not uniform in terms of including or linking to the respective state's current special education legislation and regulations Second, review of materials on SEA Web sites required special care in separating law from guidelines and other such documents Per previous example (Zirkel & Thomas, 2010), the boundary extended beyond legislation and regulations only for the limited exceptions of policies formally adopted by the state board of education (Oklahoma) or expressly delegated by the regulations (Idaho) In contrast, the tabulation excluded an information bulletin that an SEA assistant superintendent issued (Wisconsin Department of Public August 2011 / 265 Instruction, 2007) Finally, Utah represented a special situation More specifically, its regulations mandatorily cross-refer—in the express lEP consideration for an FBA and BIP, "as appropriate," for learning-impeding behavior—to the SEA'S "Special Education Least Restrictive Behavior Intervention (LRBI) Guidelines." Although a close call, on balance these guidelines not appear to have a legally binding effect, particularly in light of their express introductory caveat: "Because this document constitutes best practice guidelines, it does not carry the same merit as the [regulations]" (Utah Office of Education, n.d., p 5) As a result, the resulting tabulation mentions the connection to the LRBI guidelines in the Comments column but does not incorporate their detailed provisions for FBAs and BIPs in the entries for the other columns The threshold exclusion was for those laws that were exclusive to agencies, such as institutions for adults with disabilities, other than K-12 schools The scope of the study similarly does not extend to the legislation or regulations in several states—for example, Colorado (special education specialists and generalists) New Hampshire (special education teachers in specified categories New Mexico (gifted teachers), and Texas (behavior diagnostician)—for educator preparation and/ or certification requirements specific to FBAsBIPs It also excludes state laws authorizing or requiring school district policies and training for behavior intervention not specific to FBAs and BIPs, such as the more general provisions in Illinois' law Basic to the legal structure of cooperative federalism (e.g Bay Shore Union Free School District V Kain, 2007, pp 733-734), states add to—not subtract from—the minimum requirements of the IDEA, which apply nationally regardless of whether state laws expressly repeat or incorporate them Thus, the tabulation of the state laws within the specified scope of the search was limited to the provisions that exceeded, as contrasted with those that merely mirrored, the aforementioned foundational framework provisions of the current IDEA legislation and regulations For the most part, the distinction was rather straightforward However, a few states presented difficult interpretation issues For example, in Pennsylvania, the reference to "behavior that interferes with learning" in its regulations' definition of BIP on first impression would seem to suggest that such behavior requires development and 266 / August 2011 implementation of a BIP However, after careful consideration, the author concluded that, on balance, this provision did not exceed the IDEA'S required special consideration for learning-impeding behavior because (a) the definition limits this criterion to students who require specific intervention to address such behavior, (b) other parts of the relevant regulation require a BIP for only one specific learning-impeding behavior (i.e., referrals to law enforcement), and (c) a BIP that in selective cases results from the lEP special consideration meets this definitional characteristic, whereas the characteristic in itself does not necessitate a BIP in all cases of learning-impeding behaviors Similarly, the Hawaii regulations specific to discipline procedures treat removals of more than 10 cumulative days ambiguously Based on the less than clear corresponding IDEA regulation and Hawaii's more specific relevant regulation for "crisis removals," the author concluded that this provision did not warrant a distinguishing entry Thus, although each a close call, these two cases on balance did not appear to add to the IDEA regulatory requirements In contrast, California's BIP definitional criterion—"when the individual exhibits a serious behavior problem that significantly interferes with the implementation of the goals and objectives of the individual's lEP"—appeared, in the absence of other interpretational indicators, to justify a qualified entry in the tabulation Based on the compilation being the first one for this specific purpose, the author decided upon two successive frameworks: (a) an overview of the "when," "who," "what," and "how" of the state law provisions for FBAs and BIPs, respectively, and (b) an analysis of the central "what," or definitional, dimension of key components of FBAs and BIPs The professional literature provided a partial basis for the definitional components However, the categories of both tables are only tentative, subject to more refined follow-up analyses that add the perspective of specialized behavioral expertise in within the fields of psychology and special education Similarly, the hierarchy of the entries is only a starting point for more operationally defined and objectively determined designations Finally, for the sake of uniformity and simplicity, the tabulation uses the acronyms FBA and ß/Pgenerically, although some state laws use variations of these template terms For example, California's law uses a variation of functional behavioral analysis—functional Behavioral Disorders, 36 (4), 262-278 analysis assessment" Similarly, other state laws use variations of behavior intervention plan, such as behavior management plan (Illinois), positive behavior plan (Nevada), and positive behavior support plan (Louisiana and Pennsylvania) Results Table summarizes the differential state law provisions in their four major categories The "when" pair of columns refers to the triggering events that require an FBA or BIP, respectively The "who" pair of columns refers to the individuals or team required to develop the FBA or BIP, with the understanding that the IDEA expressly allocates this responsibility to the lEP team only for disciplinary changes in placement The "what" pair of columns refers to the required contents of the EBA or BIP, as specified in the applicable definition in state law The "how" pair of columns refers to the implementation requirements for the FBA or BIP The "Comments" column provides brief clarifications, numbered according to the referenced column for the clarified entry Finally, the entries are according to an approximate three-level hierarchy of symbols—with variations for partial or additional entries—in terms of extensiveness based on the author's judgment The note below the table provides the coding key for these symbols, which include, for example, O (limited) and * (extensive) Examination of Table I reveals that only 31 of the 50 states have statutory or regulatory provisions for FBAs and/or BIPs that exceed the requirements of the IDEA and that most of these provisions are relatively limited in terms of their scope and strength For example, the majority of the 31 state laws address half or less than half of the four pairs (i.e., FBAs and BIPs, respectively) of key questions (i.e., when, who, what, and where), and these legal provisions are largely at a notably limited level Conversely, the pertinent provisions in 12 of the 31 states— Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Rhode Island—are negligible, being limited to one or two columns at the most minimal level In contrast, only a few states—led by far by California—have laws that exceed the IDEA requirements for FBAs and BIPs to an extensive extent across and within these four questions Yet, like the IDEA, none of the state special education laws require both an FBA and a BIP when the behavior of a child Behavioral Disorders, 36 (4), 262-278 with a disability interferes with the learning of the child or others Civen the central role of the "what," or contents, question in Table 1, Table classifies the provisions in the 17 of the 31 state laws that define FBAs and/or BIPs In the absence of any definition in the IDEA and of a clear consensus in the professional literature, the selected features include the readily applicable criteria from Van Acker et al (2005) supplemented by those frequently specified in other oft-cited sources (e.g., Sugai et al., 2000) However, this table does not extend to what some sources regard as other key components of an FBA (e.g., triangulation of data across settings, persons, and behaviors) or of a BIP (e.g., specification of previous interventions, the target behavior, a crisis management plan, and the replacement behavior) Because of the limited scope of these state law provisions, the coded entries—as noted at the bottom of the table—are limited to three inexact ordinal levels ranging from (•) = partial or only implied to ^ = more detail than mere mention The entries in Table reveal that only one third (n = 17) of state laws have definitional provisions for FBAs and/or BIPs Moreover, these 17 states' laws tend to have definitions provisions more often for FBAs than for BIPs, and the majority so with bare-bones references to the selected features For FBAs, the most commonly referenced features are function (n = 14) and target behavior (n = 12), each with four instances of more detail than mere mention For BIPs, the only very frequent feature was strategies (n = 15) but in almost every case was limited to mere mention Indeed, only a few states—California, Idaho, New York, and Utah—have definitional provisions that go beyond mere mention of two or more of these selected features of FBAs and BIP However, because of the limited nature of not only the interpretational entries but also their column categories Appendix A provides the excerpted text of these state laws' definitional provisions In addition, for purposes of both independent interpretation and additional state laws Appendix B provides the citations for the legislation and regulations referenced in both tables Discussion Contrary to the abundant literature and extensive recommendations in special education August 2011 / 267 TABLE Overview of State Law Provisions for FBAs and BIPs for Students with Disabilities When FBA BIP AL o AR (0) (0) CA • • CO CT FL GA • • HI 0 Who What How FBA BIP S FBA BIP FBA BIP (O) • • •+ (0) • • • • • (O) O • (O) • (0) • o • (0) (0) • ID • IL o IN LA o ME o • MD (O) MN •+ MT NE NV (0) o (O) (O) o (O) (0) • (0) o NH NJ (O) NM (O) (O) NY * (O) • o o • o OH OK •+ • • (O) (O) OR o Comments for Columns 1-8 1-return from crime-referral to juvenile justice authorities 7-18 mo limit for re-doins FBA after affinnative M-D 1,2-IEP special consideration may include FBA or BIP 1-when "instructional/behavioral approaches specified in the student's IEP have heen ineffective" 2-serious hehavior problem that significantly interferes with IEP goals 3-individuaI with behavior analysis training emphasizing positive behavioral interventions 4-IEP team, behavior intervention mgr., and specified others 7-speciñed sources, parent report & IEP team meeting 8-in IEP + specified training, evaluation, and modifications 2-quatified restraints (crisis mgmt or alt mech./chem.) I-seclusion 1,2-for students with emotional disturbance 8-in IEP wben appropriate -for crisis removals < 11 consecutive days 1,2-for > 10 cumulative days upon "yes" manifestation determination 5,6-additional details via attached forms 8-progress monitoring, etc., via attached form 2-for removals > 10 cumulative days 8-in IEP 4-IEP team 8-in IEP 1,2-for "self-injurious hehavior" and for ES Y 4,8-lEP team 3-"appropriatelv qualified individuals" 1-consideration after restraint or seclusion + upon parental request after "exclusion" 2-prereq (but alternatives) for restraint or seclusion and consideration afterward (+ upon parental request after "exclusion") 1-for eligibility for emotional disttirbanee + for any "conditional procedure" (e.g., seclusion or restraint) 3,4-IEP team upon pattern (e.g., 2x/mo.) of conditional procedures 6-indirect and limited via more general "behavior interventions" regulation 8-parental consent revocation -for "aversive procedures" (i.e., specified forms of restraint and seclusion) 8'ln IEP in limited circumstances 1-after uses of physical or mechanical restraint 2-for "aversive behavioral interventions" (e.g., specified forms of restraint) 8-in IEP l-part of initial evaluation "where appropriate" 1-"strongly encouraged" in IEP for learning-impeding behavior 1-for learning-impeding behavior as part of initial evaluation 2-consideration for impeding or injury-risk behavior or for more restrictive placement 4-IEP team 8-progress monitoring + reviewed at least annually and documented in the IEP 7,8-time limit for each after affirmative M-D 1-express but qualified consideration 3-pennissive specification of group and particular members o 1,2-after referral to law enforcement + consideration after restraint 4-IEP team 8-in IEP RI (O) 2-permissive if >10 cumulative days 1-for resident high-risk juvenile offenders (+ possibly strengthened IEP consideration for children with o TX o o (O) autism) 2-possible consideration after restraint 1-express qualified IEP consideration (with mandatory UT 0+ cross reference to LRBi guidelines) (0) •+ 5,6-incorporation to consider LRBI guidelines) 1,2-express IEP consideration + qualified IEE right upon o VA (O) (O) "yes" manifestation deteimination WV • 3-includes evaluation by school personnel and parents (O) • Note (O) = partial or only implied; O = limited; • = moderate; * = extensive; + = additions via expressly incorporated forms or guidelines PA o 268 / August 2011 o o o Behavioral Disorders, 36 (4), 262-278 TABLE State Laws' Selected Definitional Features for FBAs and BIPs foi Students with Disabilities BIP FBA specific target behavior antecedent consequences function multiple sotirces nexus to BIP CA • • • • • • FL « • • strategies 10 staff supports • • • 10-by behavior intervention case mgr • • • 9- positive * * 9- positive nexus settings to FBA • GA ID • IL * IN • • * * • 8-coordination w home « • (•) • (•) 9-positive • * I-behavior patterns 9-indirectly via behavior (ã) MD MN Comments ã ô ME 11 monitor/ evaluate * NH NY • • • • • OR 9-positive PA « TX UT • * • » • * (•) • 9-positive VA WV * * Note (•)= partial or only implied; • = mentioned; • = more detail than merely mentioning the state laws specific to FBAs and BIPs are relatively limited First, in comparison to the rather narrow pertinent provisions of the IDEA, only a small majority (n = 31) of the states have additional requirements More significantly, these additional provisions are even more notably limited in terms of scope and specificity For example, unlike the norms in the professional literature, none of the state laws require both an FBA and a BIP when the behavior of a child with a disability interferes with the learning of the child or others Similarly, only 17 state laws define FBAs and/or BIPs, and the definitions for the most part are skeletal and general, leaving wide latitude for district compliance Thus, when parents resort to either the state complaint resolution process or the impartial hearing/judicial review process (Zirkel & McGuire, 2010) as to their child's entitlement to, or the appropriateness of, an FBA or BIP, the odds of a favorable outcome in Behavioral Disorders, 36 (4), 262-278 most jurisdictions are slim if the determination is based strictly on the requirements in the IDEA and state law For example, the Seventh Circuit's decision in Alex R v Forrestville Valley Community School District (2004) rejected a parent's challenge to the appropriateness of a BIP as follows: Although we may interpret a statute and its implementing regulations, we may not create out of whole cloth substantive provisions for the [BIP] contemplated hy [the IDEA] In short, the District's [BIP] could not have fallen short of suhstantive criteria that not exist, and so we conclude as a matter of law that it was not suhstantively invalid under the IDEA (p 615) A separate comprehensive and up-to-date study of case law will reveal (a) to what extent the trend is to rely on professional norms, via expert witnesses, as compared with adhering only to the specified legal standards, and (b) August 2011 / 269 whether these state laws make a significant difference in the adjudicative outcome The limited scope of the FBA/BIP requirements in the IDEA, their complete absence in 19 states, and the limited additions in the remaining 31 states leave ample room for local latitude Even in situations of more extensive legal mandates, LEAs certainly may exceed IDEA and state law standards in their policies and practices, working proactively with parents to avoid such legal disputes However, they should so as a matter of professional discretion distinct from and not confused with legal requirements As Board of Education v Rowley (1982) and its lower court progeny about appropriateness under the IDEA remind us, best practice standards are, unless incorporated in law, duly different from the applicable legal minimum The disparity between the literature and the law is attributable in part to the normative lenses in the special education profession Although the aspirational norm of best practice is admirable, the special education literature often fails to differentiate the legal shall from the professional should This confusion between legal requirements and best practice for FBAs and/or BIPs starts with interpretations of the IDEA For example Cable and Hendrickson claimed, "According to [the] 1997 IDEA, schools must introduce [FBA] to address serious and persistent problem behavior includ[ing] that which militates against classroom learning for the student or others" (p 168) Unfortunately, rather than carefully analyzing and citing the IEP special consideration provision of the IDEA, they relied on a secondary source that had more carefully recommended such proactive steps (Yell & Shriner, 1997) Another contributing factor is the special education literature's lack of differentiation between pertinent provisions in state laws and those in SEA guidelines For example, apparently relying on Smith (2000), Drasgow and yell (2001) identified Iowa as being one of the State with more stringent requirements "than the IDEA has for FBAs" (p.248) Yet Smith cited only guideline documents from Iowa's Department of Education, whereas Iowa law only repeats the IDEA language with regard to FBA and BIPs As previously explained (Zirkel & Thomas, 2010), even the guidelines that have official SEA status are couched in terms of recommendations rather than requirements, and in any event, courts typically reject state guidelines as nonbinding in light of their failure to follow the formal processes of 270 / August 2011 legislation or regulations (Bethlehem Area School District v Zhou, 2009; D.K v Abington School District, 2010; Holmes v Millcreek Township School District, 2000) A third reason for the difference between the professional lore and the formal law may be a deliberate choice at the state level On one hand, the legal will of the official body politic may not match the normative level of the special education profession Alternatively, perhaps both the profession and the policy makers have chosen to reserve the technical details of FBAs and BIPs for LEA customization of the resource materials at SEA Web sites and in the special education literature This choice would recognize limits of law, including transaction costs, enforcement issues, and rigid formalism (e.g., Claes, Devroe, & Keirbilk, 2009; Pennock & Chapman, 1974) Thus, perhaps Scott and Kamps (2007) were correct in premising the future of FBAs—and, implicitly, BIPs—on their "i:ontextual fit within the physical, systemic, and theoretical frameworks of contemporary schools" (p 149), while limiting the role of law to passing mention of "the spirit" (p 149) of the IDEA Nevertheless, the results of this canvassing of state laws are subject not only to interpretive ferment (e.g., Osborne, Russo, & Zirkel, 2010) but also to legal fluidity More specifically, the search revealed movement in some states to change their laws concerning FBAs and BIPs For example, Maryland has legislation, passed in 2002 and amended in 2006, that required establishment of a task force to propose new regulations for student restraints and seclusion, including the triggering circumstances for FBAs and BIPs and the definition of a BIP (Md Code Ann., 2009) As an illustration of movement in the other direction, Utah in 2007 changed the status of its LRBl provisions from being part of its regulations to cross-referenced guidelines (Zirkel, 2008), In conclusion, special education professionals, including but not limited to those who focus on children with behavior disorders, need to more carefully identify and interpret the legal requirements for FBAs and BIPs in both the IDEA and state law, with due differentiation of normative expertise and expectations This single, legally specialized "outsider" analysis, which has limitations that include but are not limited to the lack of operational criteria and interrater reliability, is intended to stimulate, not substitute for, such scholarly endeavors as the foundation for advocacy and advice to policy makers for the sake of effective programs Behavioral Disorders, 36 (4), 262-278 for students with disabilities This activity includes informing the law-making process not only at the state level but also during the next reauthorization of the IDEA REFERENCES Alex R V Forrestville Valley Cmty Sch Dist., 375 F.3d 603 (7th Cir 2004) Bay Shore Union Free Sch Dist v Kain, 485 F.3d 730 (2d Cir 2007) Bethlehem Area Sch Dist v Zhou, 976 A.2d 1284 (Pa Commw Ct 2009) Blood, E., & Neel, R S (2007) From FBA to implementation: A look as what is actually being delivered Fducation and Treatment of Children, 30, 67-80 Bd of Educ V Rowley, 458 U.S 176 (1982) Carr, E G., & Durand, V M (1985) Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111-126 Claes, E., Devroe, W., & Keirbilk, B (Eds.) (2009) Facing the limits of law New York: Springer Conroy, M., Katsiyannis, A., Clark, D., Gable, R A., & Fox, J J (2002) State office of education practices implementing the IDEA disciplinary provisions Behavioral Disorders, 27, 98-108 D.K V Abington Sch Dist., 54 IDELR H 119 (E.D Pa 2010) Drasgow, E., & Yell, M L (2001) Functional behavioral assessments: Legal requirements and challenges School Psychology Review, 30, 239-252 Etscheidt, S (2006) Behavioral intervention plans: Pedagogical and legal analysis of issues Behavioral Disorders, 31, 223-243 Fox, J., & Davis, C (2005) Functional behavior assessment in schools: Current research findings and future directions Journal of Behavioral Fducation, 14, 1-4 Gable, R A., & Hendrickson, J M (2005) Changing discipline policies and practices: Finding a place for functional behavioral assessment in schools Preventing School Failure, 43, 167-170 Hanley, G P., Iwata, B A., & McCord, B E (2003) Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36,147-185 Holmes v Millcreek Twp Sch Dist., 205 F.3d 583 (3d Cir 2000) Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) legislation 20 U.S.C §§ 1401 et seq (2009) IDEA regulations 34 C.F.R §§ 300.1 ef seq (2009) IDEA regulations commentary, 64 Fed Register 12,406 et seq (Mar 12, 1999) IDEA regulations commentary, 71 Fed Register 46,540 et seq (Aug 14, 2006) Iwata, B A., Dorsey, M F., Slifer, K J., Bauman, K E., & Richman, G S (1982) Toward a functional analysis of self-injury Analysis & Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3-20 Kennedy, C H., Meyer, K A., Knowles, T., & Shukia, S (2000) Analyzing the multiple functions of Behavioral Disorders, 36 (4), 262-278 stereotypical behavior for students with autism Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 559-571 Killu, K., Weber, K P., Derby, K M., & Barretto, A (2006) Behavior intervention planning and implementation of positive behavioral support plans: An examination of states' adherence to standards for practice Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 195-200 Letter to Janssen, 51 IDELR H 253 (OSEP 2008) Letter to Trader, 48 IDELR H 47 (OSEP 2006) Maag, J W., & Katsiyannis, A (2006) Behavioral intervention plans: Legal and practical considerations for students with emotional and behavioral disorders Behavioral Disorders, 31, 348-360 Md Code Ann (Educ.) § 7-1102 (2009) National Association of State Directors of Special Education (1998, June) Functional behavioral assessment: State policies and procedures Retrieved from ERIC database (ED420958) National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (2011, January) State regulations for implementing Part B of the IDEA Retrieved from http://www.nectac.org/sec619/stateregs.asp OSEP Memorandum No.97-7, 26 IDELR 981 (OSEP 1997) Osborne, A G., & Russo, C J (2009) Update on the disciplinary provisions of the 1997 and 2004 IDEA amendments West's Fducation Law Reporter, 244, 915-922 Osborne, A., Russo, C, & Zirkel, P A (2010, July) You be the judge: Point/counterpoint—FBAs and BIPs FLA Notes, 45(3), 8-9 Pelios, L., Morren, J., Tesch, D., & Axelrod, S (1999) The impact of functional analysis methodology on treatment choice for self-injurious and aggressive behavior Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 185-196 Pennock, J R., & Chapman, J W (Eds.) (1974) The limits of law New York: Lieber-Atherton Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures, 47 IDELR H 227 (OSERS 2007) Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures, 52 IDELR t 231 (OSERS 2009) Quinn, M M., Gable, R A., Fox, J., Van Acker, R., & Conroy, M (2001) Putting quality functional assessment into practice in schools: A research agenda on behalf of E/BD students Fducation and Treatment of Children, 24, 261-275 Scott, T M., & Kamps, D M (2007) The future of functional behavioral assessment in school settings Behavioral Disorders, 32, 146-157 Smith, C R (2000) Behavioral and discipline provisions of IDEA '97: Implicit competencies yet to be confirmed Fxceptional Children, 66, 3, 403-412 Steege, M W., & Watson, T S (2008) Best practices in functional behavior assessment In A Thomas & J Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp 337-347) Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists Sugai, G., Horner, R H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T J., Nelson, C M., Wilcox, B (2000) August 2011 / 271 Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessments in schools Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 23, 131-43 Turnbull, R., Wilcox, B L., Stowe, M., Raper, C, & Hedges, L P (2000) Public policy foundations for positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2, 218-231 Utah Office of Education, (n.d.) LRBI guidelines Retrieved from http://www.schools.utah.gov/ sars/Laws,-State-Rules-and-Policies/Rules-andRegulations.aspx Van Acker, R., Boreson, L., Gable, R A., & Potterton, T (2005) Are we on the right course: Lessons learned about current EBA/BIP practices in schools Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 35-36 Weber, K P., Killu, K., Derby, K M., & Barretto, A (2005) The status of functional behavior assessment (FBA): Adherence to standard practice in FBA methodology Psychology in the Schools, 42, 737-744 Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2007, Eebruary) Information update bulletin 07.01 Retrieved from http://dpi.wi.gov/sped/bulO7-O1 html Yell, M L., & Shriner, J G (1997) The IDEA amendments of 1997: Implications for general and special education teachers Focus on Exceptional Children, 30{^), 1-19 Zirkel, P A (2003) Do OSEP policy letters have legal weight? West's Education Law Reporter, 171, 391-396 272 / August 2011 Zirkel, P A (2007) Suspensions and expulsions of students with disabilities: The latest requirements West's Education Law Reponer, 214, 445^49 Zirkel, P A (2008) Discipline of students with disabilities: A judicial update Wesf'5 Education Law Reporter, 235, 1-10 Zirkel, P A., & McGuire, B L (2010) A roadmap to legal dispute resolution for students with disabilities Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23, 100-112 Zirkel, P A., & Thomas, L (2010) State laws and guidelines for implementing RTI Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(^), 60-73 AUTHORS' NOTE Address correspondence to Perry A Zirkel, Lehigh University, 111 Research Dr Bethlehem, PA 18015 MANUSCRIPT Initial Acceptance: 4/14/11 Final Acceptance: 6/13/11 Behavioral Disorders, 36 (4), 262-278 APPENDIX A Definitional Provisions for Table FBA CA A |FBA] must be conducted by, or be under the supervision of a person who has documented training in behavior analysis with an emphasis on positive behavioral interventions A [FBA] shall occur after the [lEP] team finds that instructional/behavioral approaches specified in the student's IEP have been ineffective Nothing in this section shall preclude a parent or legal guardian from requesting a [FBAI pursuant to the [pre-placement evaluation] provisions of [the state special education laws] [FBA] personnel shall gather information from three sources: direct observation, interviews with significant others, and review of available data such as assessment reports prepared by other professionals and other individual records Prior to conducting the assessment, parent notice and consent shall be obtained (1) A [FBA] procedure shall include all of the following: (A) Systematic observation of the occurrence of the targeted behavior for an accurate definition and description of the frequency, duration, and intensity; (B) Systematic observation of the immediate antecedent events associated with each instance of the display of the targeted inappropriate behavior; (C) Systematic observation and analysis of the consequences following tbe display of the behavior to determine the function the behavior serves for the individual, i.e., to identify the specific environmental or physiological outcomes produced by the behavior The communicative intent of the behavior is identified in terms of what the individual is either requesting or protesting through the display of the behavior; (D) Ecological analysis of the settings in which the behavior occurs most frequently Factors to consider should include the physical setting, the social setting, the activities and the nature of instruction, scheduling, the quality of communication between the individual and staff and other students, the degree of independence, the degree of participation, the amount and quality of social interaction, the degree of choice, and the variety of activities; (E) Review of records for health and medical factors which may influence behaviors (e.g medication levels, sleep cycles, health, diet); and (F) Review of the history of the behavior to include the effectiveness of previously used behavioral interventions (2) Following the assessment, a written report of the assessment results shall be prepared and a copy shall be provided to the parent The report shall include all of the following: BIP A written document which is developed when the individual exhibits a serious behavior problem that significantly interferes with the implementation of the goals and objectives of the individual's IEP The "behavioral intervention plan" shall become part of the IEP The plan shall describe the frequency of the consultation to be provided by the behavioral intervention case manager to the staff members and parents who are responsible for implementing the plan A copy of the plan shall be provided to the person or agency responsible for implementation in noneducational settings The pian shall include the following: (1) a summary of relevant and determinative information gathered from a [FBA]; (2) an objective and measurable description of the targeted maladaptive behavior(s) and replacement positive behavior(s); (3) the individual's goals and objectives specific to the [BIP]; (4) a detailed description of tbe bebavioral interventions to be used and the circumstances for their use; (5) specific schedules for recording the frequency of the use of the interventions and the frequency of the targeted and replacement behaviors; including specific criteria for discontinuing the use of the intervention for lack of effectiveness or replacing it with an Identified and specified alternative; (6) criteria by which the procedure will be faded or phased-out, or less intense/frequent restrictive behavioral intervention schedules or techniques will be used; (7) those behavioral interventions which will be used in the home, residential facility, work site or other noneducational settings; and (8) specific dates for periodic review by the IEP team of the efficacy of the program Such interventions shall only be used to replace specified maladaptive behavior(s) with alternative acceptable behavior(s) and shall never be used solely to eliminate maladaptive behavior(s) [and] shall be based upon a FBA], shall be specified in the individualized education program [and] to the extent possible, shall be developed and implemented in a consistent manner appropriate to each of the individual's life settings (A) A description of the nature and severity of the targeted behavior(s) in objective and measurable terms; (B) A description of the targeted behavior(s) that includes baseline data and an analysis of the antecedents and consequences that maintain the targeted behavior, and a functional analysis of the behavior across all appropriate settings in which it occurs; (C) A description of the rate of alternative behaviors, their antecedents and consequences; and (D) Recommendations for consideration by the iEP team which may include a proposed [BIP] Behavioral Disorders, 36 (4), 262-278 August 2011 / 273 APPPENDIX A Continued FBA BIP FL A systematic process for defining a student's specific behavior and determining the reason why (function or purpose) the behavior is occurring The FBA process includes examination of the contextual variables (antecedents and consequences) of the behavior, environmental components, and other information related to the behavior The purpose of conducting an FBA is to determine whether a IBIP] should be developed A plan for a student which uses positive behavior interventions, supports and other strategies to address challenging behaviors and enables the student to learn socially appropriate and responsible behavior in school and/or educational settings GA A systematic process for defining a child's specific behavior and determining the reason why (function or purpose) the behavior is occurring The FBA process includes examination of the contextual variables (antecedents and consequences) of the behavior, environmental components, and other information related to the behavior The purpose of conducting an FBA is to determine whether a IBIP] should be developed A plan for a child with disabilities, included in the lEP when appropriate, which uses positive behavior interventions, supports and other strategies to address challenging behaviors and enables the child to learn socially appropriate and responsible behavior in school and/or educational settings ID A systematic process for defining problem behavior and A plan comprising practical and specific strategies gathering medical, environmental, social, and designed to increase or reduce a definable instructional information that can be used to hypothesize behavior These strategies address preventative about the function of student behavior [+ Form 530 techniques, teaching replacement behaviors, how to respond or resolve behaviors, and crisis includes "the pattern of behavior (frequency, intensity, management, if necessary [+ Form 520 includes duration, environmental factors, and context in which the target behavior (lEP goal) + how often, who is behavior occurred"; "history (e.g., what circumstances responsible, and progress monitoring for the make the behavior more likely to occur, medical or prevention activities, specific behavior(s)/skill(s), physical concerns, substance abuse issues, stressful events and adult response] in the student's life)"; "effectiveness of interventions (what have been used and were they effective?)"; and "theory for the function or purpose of the behavior."] IN An assessment process for gathering information regarding the target behavior, its antecedents and consequences, controlling variables, the student's strengths, and the communicative and functional intent of the behavior, for use in developing behavioral interventions The lEP of a student who requires a behavioral intervention plan shall: 1) Summarize the findings of the functional behavioral assessment; 2) Summarize prior interventions implemented; 3) Describe any behavioral interventions to be used, including those aimed at developing or strengthening alternative or more appropriate behaviors; 4) Identify the measurable behavioral changes expected and methods of evaluation; 5) Identify a schedule for a review of the interventions' effectiveness; and 6) Identify provisions for communicating with the parents about their child's behavior and coordinating school-based and homebased interventions A process that uses data to identify patterns in the student's behavior and the purpose or function of the behavior for the student A plan agreed upon by the IIFP team! and incorporated into a student's lEP that describes the following: (1 ) The pattern of behavior that impedes the student's learning or the learning of others (2) The purpose or function of the behavior as identified in a functional behavioral assessment (3) The positive interventions and supports, and other strategies, to; (A) address the behavior; and (B) maximize consistency of implementation across people and settings in which the student is involved (4) If applicable, the skills that will be taught and monitored in an effort to change a specific pattern of behavior of the student The behavioral intervention plan seeks to maximize consistency of implementation across people and settings in which the student is involved 274 / August 2011 Behavioral Disorders, 36 (4), 262-278 APPPENDIX A Continued FBA BIP MD The systematic process of gathering information to guide the development of an effective and efficient [BIP] for the problem behavior includes the: (i) Identification of the functions of the problem behavior for the student; (ii) Description of the problem behavior exhibited in the educational setting; and (iii) Identification of environmental and other factors and settings that contribute to or predict the occurrence, nonoccurrence, and maintenance of the behavior over time ME A school-based process used by the IEP Team, which includes the parent and, as appropriate, the child, to determine why a child engages in challenging behaviors and how the behavior relates to the child's environment The term includes direct assessments, indirect assessments and data analysis designed to assist the IEP Team to identify and define the problem behavior in concrete terms, identify the contextual factors (including affective and cognitive factors) that contribute to the behavior, and formulate a hypothesis regarding the general conditions under which a behavior usually occurs and the probable consequences that maintain the behavior Formal documentation of the assessment by appropriately qualified individuals becomes part of the child's educational record and is provided to the IEP Team MN A process for gathering information to maximize the efficiency of behavioral supports An FBA includes a description of problem behaviors and the identification of events, times, and situations that predict the occurrence and nonoccurrence of the behavior An FBA also identifies the antecedents, consequences, and reinforcers that maintain the behavior, the possible functions of the behavior, and possible positive alternative behaviors An FBA includes a variety of data collection methods and sources that facilitate the development of hypotheses and summary statements regarding behavioral patterns NH An assessment of a student's behavior Behavioral Disorders, 36 (4), 262-278 A proactive plan designed to address problem behaviors exhibited by a student in the educational setting through the use of positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports The positive behavior interventions and supports incorporated in the student's IEP August 2011 / 275 APPPENDIX A Continued FBA BIP NY The process of determining why the student engages in A plan that is based on the results of a [FBA] and, at a behaviors that impede learning and how the student's minimum, includes a description of the problem behavior relates to the environment The IFBAl behavior, global and specific hypotheses as to why shall include, but is not limited to, |(1)| the identification the problem behavior occurs and intervention of the problem behavior, the definition of the behavior in strategies that include positive behavioral supports concrete terms, the identification of the contextual factors and services to address the behavior that contribute to the behavior (including cognitive and affective factors) and the formulation of a hypothesis regarding the general conditions under which a behavior usually occurs and probable consequences that serve to maintain it (2) The FBA shall, as appropriate, be based on multiple sources of data including, but not limited to, information obtained from direct observation of the student, information from the student, the student's teacher(s) and/or related service provider(s), a review of available data and information from the student's record and other sources including any relevant information provided by the student's parent The FBA shall not be based solely on the student's history of presenting problem behaviors The FBA shall provide a baseline of the student's problem behaviors with regard to frequency, duration, intensity and/or latency across activities, settings, people and times of the day and include the information required 1(1 )| in sufficient detail to form the basis for a behavioral intervention plan for the student that addresses antecedent behaviors, reinforcing consequences of the behavior, recommendations for teaching alternative skills or behaviors and an assessment of student preferences for reinforcement OR An individualized assessment of the student that results in a hypothesis about the function of a student's behavior and, as appropriate, recommendations for a [BIP] PA An individualized plan, inc[uding positive interventions, designed to assist a student to decrease inappropriate behavior and increase or teach an alternative appropriate behavior [BlPsI must be based on a [FBA] A plan for students with disabilities and eligible young children who require specific intervention to address behavior that interferes with [earning A positive behavior support plan shall be developed by the lEP team, be based on a functional behavior assessment, and become part of the individual e[igible young child's or student's IFP These plans must include methods that utilize positive reinforcement and other positive techniques to shape a student's or eligible young child's behavior, ranging from the use of positive verbal statements as a reward for good behavior to specific tangibie rewards TX A [FBA] includes: (1) data collection, through interviews with and observation of the resident; (2) data analysis; and (3) development of an individualized school behavioral intervention plan for the resident Developed from a [FBA[ that uses current data related to target behaviors and addresses behavioral programming across home, school, and community-based settings UT A systematic process of identifying problem behaviors and the events that (a) reliably predict occurrence and nonoccurrence of those behaviors, and (b) maintain the behaviors across time [FBA] should produce three main results: a Hypothesis statements that have: (1) Operational definitions of the problem behavior, (2) Descriptions of the antecedent events that reliably predict occurrence and non-occurrence, and (3) Descriptions of the consequent events that maintain the behavior; b Direct observation data supporting these hypotheses; and c A [BIP] A written plan for changing a student's behavior Including target behavior, strategies for teaching replacement behavior, reinforcers, and a schedule for review of intervention effectiveness data 276 / August 2011 Behavioral Disorders, 36 (4), 262-278 APPPENDIX A Continued FBA BIP VA A process to determine the underlying cause or functions of a child's behavior that impede the learning of the child with a disability or the learning of the child's peers A IFBA] may include a review of existing data or new testing data or evaluation as determined by the IFP team A plan that utilizes positive behavioral interventions and supports to address behaviors that interfere with the learning of students with disabilities or with the learning of others or behaviors that require disciplinary action WV A sequential, multi-step, team evaluation process that helps to determine the purpose and the effect of the problem behavior(s) so that lEP goals and objectives can be identified, and interventions and modifications can be developed and implemented, specifically through a student's |BIP] A FBA requires that both school personnel and the parents evaluate the behaviors of concern within the broader perspective of the student's home and school environments Written, purposeful and individualized plan based upon a student's [FBA] The BIP describes the positive behavioral Interventions, strategies and supports required to implement the student's lEP goals and objectives in the areas of social, emotional and/or behavioral development The BIP may include, but is not limited to: Environmental modifications that reduce the likelihood of the problem behavior; Guidance, structured opportunities and/or instruction in the use of new skills as a replacement for problem behaviors; Consequences to promote positive change and diminish problem behavior; A crisis management plan (if appropriate); and Procedures for monitoring, evaluating and reassessing the plan as necessary APPENDIX B Citations for State Law Provisions in Tables and AL Ala Admin Code rr 290-8-9-.09(2)(d) & 290-8-9-.09(6)(b) AR http://arksped.kl2.ar.us/sections/rulesandregulations.html - S 8.07.1.2(A) CA Cal Code Regs tit 5, §§ 3001 & 3052 CO Colo Code Regs § 301-45:226-R-2.02(1)(a)(v) CT Conn Gen Stat § 10-76b-8(b) FL Fla Admin Code Ann r 6A-6.03016(3)(a) and r 6A-6.03411(l) GA Ga Comp R & Regs 160-4-7-.21 HI ID http://lilinote.k12.hi.us/PUBLIC/ADMINRl.NSF/85255aOa0010ae82852555340060479d/ a96bfdcf49e72a390a2576790079de56?OpenDocument - § 8-60-75(b)-(g) http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/special_edu/manual_page.htm (via delegation under § 109 in http://adm.idaho.gov/ adminrules/rules/idapaO8/O2O3.pdf) IL 111 Admin Code tit 23, §S 226.75, 226.23O(b), 226.400 & 226.750(a) IN 511 Ind Admin Code 7-32-10(a) & 7-32-41 LA La Admin Code tit 28, Pt LVII, § 523 & Pt XCVII, § 705 ME 05-071 Me Admin Code Ch 101 MD Md Code Ann (Educ.) § 7-1101; Md Code Regs 13A.08.04.02, 13A.08.04.04E, & 13A.08.04.05 MN Minn Stat S§ 125A.0942(2)(c); Minn R 3525.0210, 3525.0850, 3525.1329(3)(A)(8); 3.525.2710(4)(F), & 3525.2900(5)(E) MT Mont Admin R 10.16.3346 NE 92 Neb Admin R & Regs Tit 92, § 51-003.29 NV Nev Admin Code §§ 388.5275(5) & 388.528(5) [& §1 394.368-394.369 - private schools] NH N.H Code Admin R Ann Ed 1102.01, 1102.02 & 1113.06 1& 1114.09 - private schools] NJ N.J Admin Code § 6A:14-3.4 NM N.M Code R § 6.31.2.11(F) Behavioral Disorders, 36 (4), 262-278 August 2011 / 277 NY N.Y Comp Codes R & Regs tit 8, §§ 200.1, 200.4(b)(1)(v), 200.22 & 201.2 OH Ohio Admin Code 3301:51-05 OK http://sde.state.ok.us/Curriculum/SpecEd/Default.html [Amended Policies and Procedures ] OR Or Admin R 581-015-2400 PA 22 Pa Code § 14.133 [& § 711.46 - charter schools] RI http://www.ride.ri.gov/Special_Populations/State_federal_regulations/Default.aspx - 3OO.53O(b)(1) TX Tex Educ Code Ann § 29.454; 19 Tex Admin Code §§ 89-1053(e)(4) & 89-1055(e) UT http://www.schools.utah.gov/sars/Laws,-State-Rules-and-Policies/Rules-and-Regulations.aspx - I.E & lll.l(b)(5) VA Va Admin Code S§ 20-81-10 & 20-81-160(A)(2) (http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/regulations/state/index shtml) WV W Va Code R tit 126, Series 16, App A 278 / August 2011 Behavioral Disorders, 36 (4), 262-278 Copyright of Behavioral Disorders is the property of Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use  ... variation of functional behavioral analysis? ?functional Behavioral Disorders, 36 (4), 262-278 analysis assessment" Similarly, other state laws use variations of behavior intervention plan, such as behavior. .. (2006) Behavior intervention planning and implementation of positive behavioral support plans: An examination of states'' adherence to standards for practice Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,... Maag, J W., & Katsiyannis, A (2006) Behavioral intervention plans: Legal and practical considerations for students with emotional and behavioral disorders Behavioral Disorders, 31, 348-360 Md